Tuesday, May 10, 2022

No More Ballots in the Wild

The easiest way to restore trust in the election process is to ban mail-in voting.


When the French people voted for a new president in April, they did so on a single day using paper ballots filled out in the privacy of official polling stations. France, being a normal First World democracy, takes election security seriously. Electronic voting machines are virtually never used. Mail-in voting has been banned nationwide since 1975 out of security fears. Voter rolls are regularly purged of the dead and those who have moved. It is a given that every French voter must show identification before being allowed to fill out a ballot. 

The United States, by contrast, is an oligarchy (a regime where the elite rules) that is only pretending to be a democracy. This is why we use a Third World banana republic election system. 

No reasonable observer of the 2020 election in this country could draw any other conclusion. The week-long vote count, the midnight vote total changes, the months of early voting, and the unilateral changes to election law in multiple states without legislative approval prior to the election are all signs of the profound brokenness of the American election system. Were these behaviors to appear elsewhere, our foreign policy class would have already denounced that nation as undemocratic.

The BBC, in a 2016 article on the tell-tale signs of election fraud, argued that a “delay in announcing results” is but one example of election misbehavior. 

In America, however, pointing out that such irregularities happened in 2020 is grounds for censorship by “private” tech companies and politicized prosecution from the federal government. This is the lesson from the January 6 protest.  

In his most recent film, “2000 Mules,” Dinesh D’Souza revisits the claims of election fraud in 2020. He is right to do so. Contra Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-Ky.), Republicans should not “move on” from the election. Without free and fair elections, we do not have a republic. Without the possibility of taking power, conservatives have no reason to talk about policy. 

D’Souza’s film has its silly moments, but the meat of the film—an interview with Catherine Engelbert and Gregg Philips of True the Vote—is worth the price of admission. Put simply, True the Vote bought and analyzed cell phone tracking data from swing states collected by advertisers in the month leading up to Election Day. That data shows a suspiciously high number of “devices” (individuals) who made repeat trips to and from leftist NGOs and state-run ballot boxes in places like Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Detroit. 

Video footage collected by True the Vote shows a number of individuals dropping off groups of ballots in the middle of the night in these vote collection bins. The implication is that in the fall of 2020, liberal NGOs in democratic strongholds “fortified the election” by paying activists to collect, harvest, and perhaps manufacture ballots en masse and then dump them into ballot boxes with only minimal security. 

Philip Bump at the Washington Post insists the film doesn’t actually prove there was illegal voting. Ballot collection by third parties is legal in many states and the swing states featured in the film allow for family members to drop off ballots. D’Souza also never shows money changing hands for collecting and turning in votes.

Bump is right. D’Souza’s film does not “prove” conclusively that the 2020 election was stolen.

What it does show is that American democracy is rigged.

D’Souza does not prove that the video footage of ballots being dropped off in the middle of the night is fraudulent. But Bump cannot prove that they were legitimate! 

This is the whole problem. Once ballots leave the hands of election officials—once they are jettisoned into the wild, they become collectively impossible to track. Was a given mail-in ballot filled out by the intended voter? Is the signature on the envelope forged? Was the person who dropped it off at an unwatched ballot box a family member or a liberal activist engaged in ballot trafficking? 

We have no idea. Voting rules in most states in America are so lax that fraud becomes almost inevitable. 

And, yes, fraud happens. In 2018, a Republican operative in North Carolina pleaded guilty to running an illegal ballot harvesting and manufacturing operation. 

In practice, mail-in elections give plenty of room for liberal nongovernmental organizations, activist groups, and community organizers to round up votes for their preferred (Democratic) candidates. Detroit is a good example of how this works in practice. The New York Times reports how, prior to the 2020 election, Democratic operatives and community organizers went into Detroit’s black community to pressure voters into supporting BidenThe pressure can be intense. Bridge Detroit reports that activists handed out voter registration forms at food banks. These activist groups act like one giant surveillance network. They know who is registered to vote, who isn’t, who has voted, and who hasn’t. They also know who needs food aid. It isn’t difficult to see how ripe this information is to abuse. 

Voting, to be legitimate, is supposed to be a product of independent will and choice. That is why the voting booth is private. It is also why children and the mentally disabled aren’t allowed to cast ballots. America’s elections don’t exist to ensure the maximum number of ballots are cast but that the will of the independent and informed voter is expressed. Those are not the same thing. 

In Michigan, for instance, it is illegal to campaign for a candidate within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place in order to prevent voter intimidation. Those same rules do not apply to mail-in ballots. By nature, they cannot. 

That is the whole point. That’s why Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook poured $350 million in grants into increasing mail-in voting and “ballot access” in the 2020 election. He succeeded, all right. There are plenty of people who could get access to ballots once they were sent into the world: mailmen, activists, community organizers, campaign workers, translators, nursing home staff, and “caregivers.”

Zuckerberg and the rest of America’s oligarchs wanted a mail-in election in 2020 for precisely this reason of “ballot access.” The fewer security measures taken in an election, the more the outcome can be fortified. America’s oligarchs wanted Donald Trump gone and they got what they wanted. It took wrecking the economy with COVID hysteria, months of riots and lockdowns, and unrelenting propaganda, but they succeeded. 

This is the Democrats’ way. They can’t win under the older American consensus on the democratic process. So they changed the rules. The Left insists that the 2020 election was carried out in accordance with the law. They ignore a crucial distinction—legality and legitimacy are not the same things. 

In 2020, several state governors, government officials, and executives unilaterally altered election procedures in critical states. In Michigan, the secretary of state simply ordered, without any statutory authority, that every voter be sent an absentee ballot request form. The results were, predictably, open to serious allegations of misconduct. 

Here in rural Michigan, one friend of mine received an absentee ballot even though he did not request it. Another friend received not one but two absentee ballots. I myself received an absentee ballot at my old residence in California, even though I now live, work, and vote in Michigan. 

I had that ballot destroyed because, like any good conservative, I earnestly follow rules that my enemies don’t believe in. 

America’s election chaos needs to stop. It is not enough for liberals to assert that America’s elections are safe and secure and that fraud does not happen—and then censor anyone who insists otherwise. Attacking people who ask questions is not the rock-solid argument the Left thinks it is. More than 40 percent of the electorate believes the 2020 election was stolen. That alone is reason enough to take action. Without confidence in the voting process, America will cease to be a democratic republic. 

The easiest way to restore trust in the election process is to ban mail-in voting. 

Thankfully, there is a constitutional method to make this happen at the national level. Congress, according to Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, is allowed to judge “the elections, returns, and qualifications” of its members. Congress, therefore, has the power to reject the results of elections that it believes are not secure. When Republicans next take power, they might consider refusing to seat any representative from a state that uses insecure election practices. 

Republicans should look closely at how the French secure their elections. We should hold our elections on a single day. Ballots should be cast in person. Photo identification should be required. Voters should re-register each election cycle in order to validate that they are still alive. It goes without saying that the dead are not a legitimate voting constituency—no matter what Chicago Democrats might say. 

No ballot should ever leave secure public polling places. Even voters abroad should vote in person at embassies and consulates. The same goes for military members away from their home states. Ballots should only be printed in English. Fluency in America’s native language and the possession of basic knowledge about our form of government should, likewise, be a prerequisite to voting.

Americans deserve to have confidence in their democracy. They deserve a truly republican form of government. They deserve fair and free elections. Banning mail-in voting is a step in the right direction.


X22, And we Know, and more- May 10

 



Evening. Here's tonight's news:


Bill Maher Refuses To Follow Democrats Into The Woke Abyss

Bill Maher Refuses To Follow Democrats Into The Woke Abyss

HBO Host Bill Maher is now openly mocking 'woke' Democrats for dying on the hill of gender politics while more important issues such as Roe V. Wade threaten core Democratic principles.

"Louisiana wants to pass a law that says flat out if you get an abortion, you get charged with murder. Wow," said Maher. "Suddenly getting the right pronoun doesn’t seem so big, does it?"

Kudos to Maher for pointing out his own party's descent into idiocracy.

"Oklahoma already has one on the books. Six weeks, can’t get an [abortion] after six weeks," said the comeidan, adding "Most women don’t even know they’re pregnant at six weeks.

"They don’t even know if they like the guy. Six weeks. That’s a quick look."

Maher even knocked pro-abortion protesters - saying that the claim that ending Roe v. Wade would send abortion rights back 50 years is "factually inaccurate," adding that the ruling is not "settled law," and wouldn't have the impact that pro-choice protesters think it would.

'Most abortions now, even when you go to a clinic, are done with the pill,' Maher said. The pill. And pills are easy to get in America.' 

'So, you know, for the people who say we're going back to 1973, we're not. That's just factually inaccurate.' -Daily Mail

Maher even pointed out that abortion rights in many European countries are far more restrictive than in the US.

"The modern countries of Europe are way more restrictive than we are or what they're even proposing," said Maher. "If you are pro-choice, you would like it a lot less in Germany, and Italy, and France, and Spain, and Switzerland."

Germany, France and Spain all set an abortion limits at 14 weeks into the pregancy, with Italy and Switzerland setting the cap at 12 weeks. 

Even the more liberal Norway and Denmark set the limit at 12 weeks, with Sweden limiting abortions at 18 weeks. 

In the U.S., only 22 states set abortion limits at 20 weeks or less, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and most states that have set a shorter time frame cannot enforce the law as they have faced numerous legal challenges. -Daily Mail

Meanwhile, Maher also put Democrats' primal screaming over Roe v. Wade in perspective, saying "This whole bulls*** argument about, 'Well, it's settled law.' So was segregation," adding "So that's a bulls*** argument. It's what you think."

The rational Democrat strikes again...

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bill-maher-refuses-follow-democrats-woke-abyss?

3 Things Republicans Should Do With Congressional Majorities In 2023

3 Things Republicans Should Do With Congressional Majorities In 2023


Spencer Chretin for The Federalist

There is much to be done if Republicans reclaim both chambers of Congress in November, from investigating the origins of Covid, to confronting the Biden administration’s failures on inflation and the border, to protecting parents and students who find themselves under attack by the K-12 and higher education systems. 

Any conservative candidate for office in 2022 will echo these themes. But restoring American greatness will take more than establishment politics. 

Winning the culture war will require both veteran and newly elected politicians in 2023 to adopt innovative approaches to various issues, some of which they may not realize they have power over, and some of which involve reopening old cans of worms. In this spirit, here are three ideas out of many a newly Republican Congress should make happen.

1. Pass Legislation Pressuring the Supreme Court to Reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan 

The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan made it almost impossible for public officials (and later cases made it almost impossible for “public figures,” defined extremely broadly) to win defamation lawsuits in America. From the earliest days of our republic, however, states had been free to decide how best to balance the need to ensure vigorous public debate and the principle that those who are defamed are entitled to a remedy. 

This all changed in the 1960s when the Supreme Court required public figures to prove “actual malice” if they alleged defamation, a nearly impossible standard to meet. Conservatives love to complain about media bias, but imagine how different the landscape would be if CNN was sure to lose millions of dollars every time it defamed a conservative public figure, whether that person chose a public life or became a public figure by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Nick Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse, Sarah Palin, Brett Kavanaugh — the list is endless. In addition to monetary damages for defamation, the media, in the absence of Sullivan, could be forced to issue many more retractions and corrections. 

A reconsideration of Sullivan should certainly and carefully weigh concerns about how much more costly it would be to do journalism against the political and corporate establishment in a post-Sullivan world, but incentivizing the media to get its facts right before making defamatory statements would be a game-changer. There is a reason the left lost its marbles when then-candidate Donald Trump spoke of his desire to “open up our libel laws.”

We are not starting from zero here. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have called for a reconsideration of the case, and Justice Elena Kagan as a law professor wrote an article that seemed to question certain aspects of the 1964 decision. Even those ordinarily hesitant to attack a widely heralded precedent should appreciate how much the circumstances have changed since 1964, when most Americans got their news from one of the three or four broadcasts each evening. 

As Justice Gorsuch put it last year, “What started in 1964 with a decision to tolerate the occasional falsehood to ensure robust reporting by a comparative handful of print and broadcast outlets has evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable.” 

There are a few ways Congress could force the issue;. For example, they could pass legislation that redefines the meaning of “actual malice” or “public figure.” Or they could generate momentum by acting on closely related topics, such as creating a stronger right of action for people who get doxxed by the media or are wrongfully fired from their jobs for exercising their right to political speech. In whatever way, this issue absolutely needs to be addressed.

2. Unabashedly Defend Meritocracy in Education

Conservatives rightfully talk about equal opportunity and devote much of their attention to expanding education opportunities for those at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. But the point of equal opportunity is ultimately to secure a meritocracy — an idea that is worth defending on its own. 

We need to celebrate American ingenuity and those who rise to the top, no matter where they started. We need an education system that pursues excellence. The most excellent students will create the jobs of the future. They will develop new treatments for cancer. They will explore space. They will make scientific discoveries we cannot even imagine. They will invent new ways to protect the environment and reduce pollution. 

Not everyone achieves at the same level, and equal opportunity will lead to unequal outcomes. What is unachievable is equal outcomes in education.

Our competitors, like China, understand these facts. Kids in China still want to be astronauts, while in the United States and the United Kingdom, the most popular aspiration is to be a vlogger. Our race to the bottom in academics is a national disgrace. If we believe in a free market in education, then, even as we seek to expand opportunities, we need also to design a system that rewards and promotes the best and brightest — instead of one that dumbs everything down.

What could Congress do? It could condition federal grants on having a certain ratio of faculty (who actually teach) to administrators (who don’t). It could demand more STEM slots for American students, so that our kids aren’t majoring in gender studies while foreign nationals learn nuclear engineering at our colleges. 

And it could loudly use its bully pulpit to support standardized testing — the best example of meritocracy in education, which, of course, is under relentless attack. The best ticket out of the education desert is a high test score. Eliminating standardized testing is a recipe for disaster for students at every achievement level. 

3. Meaningfully Confront the National Security State

The post-9/11 expansion of the surveillance state was one of the worst blunders in American history, and it’s time for a Republican Congress in 2023 to acknowledge as much and undo the damage of its predecessors. From turning the Patriot Act against parents at school board meetings to spying on a major-party presidential campaign to entrapping ordinary Americans, to the relentless and ridiculous diatribes about how “right-wing disinformation” is the greatest national security threat or whatever, we have reaped what we have sown. 

Conservatives in Congress need to deconstruct the apparatus of the national security state with the same fervor that colleges want to deconstruct whiteness. That apparatus is now being used against us.

The best outcome would be repeals of the underlying pieces of legislation that have enabled the three-letter security agencies in their excesses. Short of that, Congress should start proposing zeroed-out budgets and refusing to appropriate funds. 

At the very least, can we stop exempting spending on defense and intelligence from our demands to cut the budget? Conservatives in Congress should stop delegating things to the bureaucracy, especially the national security bureaucracy; we have no allies there. They should assert their own power under the Constitution and refuse to play this game any longer. 

No more warrantless spying on Americans; no more Authorizations for Use of Military Force that last 20 years and counting; no more targeting of concerned parents as domestic terrorists. No more generals talking about “white rage.” 

If we are to make this dream a reality, we need members of Congress who stop giving such insane deference to “the national security community” (as if such a community, properly defined, could exist) and start seeking forgiveness for having enabled this “community” in the first place — forgiveness for what they have done and what they have failed to do. 

These are just three examples of issues that require a new mindset from Congress. There is much to look forward to under Republican majorities, but only if they shake their learned helplessness and exercise their power to fix what is wrong with our country. 




Spygate Judge Tries To Protect Hillary Clinton In Latest Pre-Trial Rulings

Judge Christopher Cooper’s efforts to counter the impact of the case on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party extend beyond declaring the ‘co-conspirator’ exception off limits.



The Obama-appointed judge presiding over the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann let politics trump the law when he declared in a weekend opinion he would not rule on whether the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee conspired with others to peddle the Russia collusion hoax.

Special Counsel John Durham charged Sussmann last September in a one-count indictment with making a false statement to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker when Sussmann provided Baker data and “whitepapers” purporting to show a secret communication network between Donald Trump and the Russian-based Alfa Bank. According to the indictment, Sussmann told Baker he was sharing the information on his own, when, in fact, Sussmann represented both tech executive Rodney Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

With trial set to begin in one week, the last month has seen a flurry of pretrial motions—called “motions in limine”—seeking pretrial rulings on the admissibility of evidence. The court previously ruled on several of the issues the parties presented, holding in many cases that a final decision must await trial. Then, late Saturday, presiding Judge Christopher Cooper issued a further opinion resolving many of the still-outstanding evidentiary challenges.

Overall, Cooper’s Saturday night opinion, like his previous rulings in this case, represented a studious and a balanced approach to the legal issues, with Sussmann prevailing at times, but the special counsel succeeding on other issues. For instance, in a victory for Durham, the court ruled that prosecutors could present evidence concerning how the Alfa Bank “data came into being and who was involved in its collection and analysis, as well as how Mr. Sussmann came to possess the data, what he did with it, and why.”

But the court also ruled in Sussmann’s favor, first reiterating its previous holding that unless Sussmann claims at trial that the Alfa Bank data is accurate, the government may not present evidence challenging its validity. Cooper further held that the government could not present evidence that Joffe inappropriately accessed proprietary or sensitive government information to gather the data or write the whitepapers, absent some evidence “showing that Mr. Sussmann had concerns that the data was obtained inappropriately.”

Judge Cooper further demonstrated his baseline when he confronted two more significant issues presented by the opposing parties. Sussmann scored a victory when the court held the government could not admit evidence concerning notes taken by former FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap and former Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson unless they testified about their previous conversations with Baker. Even then, Judge Cooper indicated that at most the jury would likely only be read the contents of the notes, as opposed to receiving the notes themselves as exhibits to view.

Such a limitation will surely inure to Sussmann’s benefit because seeing in writing Priestap’s notation, “Michael Sussman[n]—Atty: Perkins Coie—said not doing this for any client” and Anderson’s note, “Sussman[n] Mtg w/ Baker,” “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him abt research,” would likely strike a more solid punch than merely hearing their testimony.

Sussmann, however, failed in his attempt to force the government to provide Joffe immunity so Joffe would be willing to testify in Sussmann’s defense. Sussmann had argued that the government had no reasonable basis to claim that Joffe remained a target of a criminal investigation given that the five-year statute of limitations for false statements had run, and that therefore the special counsel’s threat of prosecution served solely to induce Joffe to plead the fifth and refuse to testify on behalf of Sussmann.

Not only did the court reject this argument, in doing so the court stated—simply and without commentary—that “the Special Counsel’s continued representation that Mr. Joffe is a subject of its investigation, rather than simply a witness, does not amount to prosecutorial misconduct on this record.” Given that Sussmann framed the government’s claim that Joffe remained a target as unbelievable, the court’s refusal to question the special counsel’s representation illustrates Judge Cooper’s baseline apolitical equilibrium.

The Obama appointee faltered, however, on the Clinton campaign and handling the special counsel’s argument that various emails, even if they were hearsay, were admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. At issue were emails between Joffe and the Georgia Tech researchers Manos Antonakakis, Dave Dagon, and April Lorenzen, the “originator” of the Alfa Bank data whom Joffe had allegedly tasked to mine internet data to find a Trump-Russia connection.

After concluding some, but not all, of the emails were hearsay, the court addressed the government’s argument that the emails were admissible under federal rules of evidence as “a co-conspirator statement.”

First, Some Lawsplaining

Under federal rules of evidence, a statement made by a “co-conspirator” of a defendant “during and in furtherance of the conspiracy” is admissible even though it is hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, oral or in writing, that is presented to the jury to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

The “conspiracy” need not be criminal, however, for a statement made by another member of the “conspiracy” to be admissible, with courts typically calling non-criminal conspiracies “joint ventures.” But before a court may admit a statement under this “co-conspirator” exception, it must find “by a preponderance of the evidence” that such a conspiracy or joint venture existed. (A “preponderance of the evidence” means it is more likely that a conspiracy existed than that it didn’t, i.e., that the court is 50.1 percent sure there was such a joint venture.)

The Joint Venture

In the Sussmann case, the special counsel submitted that Joffe, Sussmann, and the Clinton campaign (or its agents) were “acting in concert toward a common goal”—i.e., “assembling and disseminating the [Alfa Bank] allegations and other derogatory information about Trump to the media and the U.S. government.” The Georgia Tech researchers and Lorenzen were also part of this joint venture, according to prosecutors.

Judge Cooper, however, refused to consider whether such a joint venture existed, stating instead that, for a variety of reasons, his court was exercising “its discretion not to engage in the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it.”

A court is well within its discretion to refuse to undertake a “lengthy journey” to assess whether a “joint venture” existed and thus whether the various emails are admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. But in the same breath that he declared himself unwilling to make this excursion, Judge Cooper contradicted his own reasoning.

“The government has indicated that it intends to call one or both of the Georgia Tech researchers at trial,” Judge Cooper wrote. “Either of them could testify to their role in assembling the data, how they came to be tasked with the project, and whether they believed the research was done for the Clinton Campaign or some other purpose.”

Thus, contrary to the court’s rationale, there is no “lengthy journey” to traverse: The court need only wait until trial to allow the government to elicit from witnesses testimony confirming the “joint venture”—something Cooper ruled they “could” testify about. In fact, in its brief in arguing the emails were admissible as “co-conspirator” statements, the special counsel’s office noted that a court could “preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.”

But Judge Cooper didn’t even need to admit the emails were “subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.” All the Obama appointee needed to do was follow the same approach he did when confronted with other evidentiary issues that were unclear or where the admissibility depended on the proof at trial: wait for trial to issue a ruling.

Further, ruling on the admissibility of the emails based on the “co-conspirator” exception to the hearsay rule during trial would require little effort, as Cooper’s Saturday opinion itself recognized, by noting that it “has already ruled on the admissibility of many of the emails on other grounds.”

That Judge Cooper deviated from the approach he took with other evidentiary issues, namely withholding final ruling until trial, only on the question of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax, suggests politics motivated that approach.

Two Other Supporting Facts

Two other details from Judge Cooper’s opinion bolster that conclusion. First, not only did Cooper declare he would not rule on the co-conspirator exception for purposes of the specific emails the special counsel’s office sought to introduce, he prejudged the importance of other emails “the Court has not yet seen.”

“Whatever few emails remain,” the court noted, “are likely to be either irrelevant or redundant of other admissible evidence,” thus negating, in the court’s view, the need to address the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

Tellingly, after announcing he would not consider the co-conspirator exception in deciding whether these still-unseen emails were admissible, Judge Cooper added that during trial he would consider whether those same emails might be admissible for a non-hearsay reason. Again, why not do the same on the co-conspirator exception?

The answer seems clear: A court declaring that Hillary Clinton’s then-lawyer had engaged in a conspiracy to “gather and spread damaging information about a Presidential candidate shortly before the scheduled election” would be a devastating blow to the Democrat.

Trying to Protect Democrats and Clinton

Judge Cooper’s efforts to counter the impact of the case on Clinton, and more broadly the Democratic Party, extend beyond merely declaring the “co-conspirator” exception off limits. Rather, in his weekend opinion, after announcing his plan to punt, Judge Cooper proceeded to question the special counsel’s theory, calling the “contours” of the joint “venture and its participants are not entirely obvious.” He then noted he was “particularly skeptical that the researchers” shared in this common goal.

Beyond being an unnecessary annotation to a case in which he expressly declined to address the co-conspirator exception, Judge Cooper’s analysis constructed a strawman to destroy. Durham’s team never claimed that the researchers joined in a conspiracy with Clinton directly, and never claimed they intended to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax to the FBI.

Rather, the joint venture concerned the shared goal of gathering and spreading damaging information about Trump and involved agents of the Clinton campaign, such as Fusion GPS. And the evidence of that joint venture was overwhelming, easily satisfying the preponderance of the evidence test. But even if Judge Cooper was not so sure about that conclusion, waiting for the trial testimony was the proper procedure, as his many earlier rulings demonstrate.

In refusing to consider the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, Judge Cooper may see himself as keeping politics out of the case. After all, as the federal judge noted in the opinion, the special counsel did not charge Sussmann with a conspiracy. But a conspiracy need not be charged for the co-conspirator exception to apply, and this case is political to its core—just as the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the corrupt press’ reporting on the Russia collusion hoax was.

And Hillary Clinton was behind it all, whether the court opts to ignore the conspiracy or not.



Reflections on Peace, Poetry and War

Reflections on Peace, Poetry and War

Yearnings to escape the horrors of our worst selves.

The specter of nuclear war has risen again, it haunts our dreams for the first time in decades.  The “end of history” was supposed to have completed that chapter, but of course that evokes our own narrow vision of the world.  For those in the shadow of North Korea and for nations and peoples that fall in range of a seemingly inevitable nuclear Iran, those halcyon peaceful days of the end of history never existed.  Indeed, for all of us, “peace” never lasts, never endures, we all live in the shadows of chaos, war and share the nightmares of human nature and none of us can escape the horrors of our worst selves.

Trying to make logical sense of it is an impossible task, to get into God’s mind, to understand His will and his plans is a temptation that we all have, but it only leads further into a never-ending depressing fall into the abyss.  I will make sense as best I can by leaning on the writers and poets, the ideas and thoughts that speak as visions, and speak to hope.  Hope is indeed a dangerous thing, but hope and faith are all that ties us, tethers us, and anchors us from that endless abyss.

We yearn for peace, but peace is allusive.  Peace in our lives, peace in the world, it has never been, and never will be the norm.  We are blessed to live in a nation that has known peace as we have.  May we continue to be so blessed, though the horizon is darkening, and night is before us. 

The yearning is strong, but again, is so allusive.  William Butler Yeats wrote in his poem “Lake Isle of Innisfree” that “And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow”.  Indeed.  Wendall Berry sought answers in his poem, “The Peace of Wild Things” which opens “When despair grows in me”, and “I come into the peace of wild things” closing with “I rest in the grace of the world and am free.”

And peace for the world, we also yearn for it, sometimes we become blinded by its allure.  Infamously British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 proclaimed we have “Peace for our Time”, yet just a year later the world would become fully engulfed in a war that would kill tens of millions.

Turmoil rakes at our souls and in our minds.  Greed, hatred, conquest and all the great sins rile through us as people and as nations.

Nowhere can we trace the modern yearning for peace more clearly then to horrors of the First World War.  We still live in the shadow of the devastation of that war a war that would mold and set the entirety of us for the next 100 years, a war that would shape our psyche and transformed us in ways that we are still trying to understand and grapple with.

Perhaps the greatest poem of the 20th Century, T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” laments the tragedy and horrors of the great conflagration of WWI, the war that destroyed Western Christian Civilization and began the downward spiral.  Written in 1922, just four years after the close of the war, Eliot’s modernist poem, would speak in lines such as ‘April is the cruellest month’, ‘A heap of broken images’, “I Had Not Thought Death Had Undone So Many’, and ‘These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruins’.

The poem, while describing the fallout and ruin of WWI, falls back and draws on the greatness of our Civilization with references to Shakespeare, Dante all the way back to the Punic Wars.  The great draw of Western Civilization fold into this epic poem on the fall of Christendom.

Just two years before Eliot’s “The Waste Land,” W.B. Yeats also saw the War for the devastation and destruction that it would prove to be in his great poem “The Second Coming”, a partial stanza:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst  
Are full of passionate intensity

WWI shook the world; indeed it ended the world that Europe was.  For WWII was just an extension of the First War, the fall out of which sees the rise of Nazism, Hitler the Holocaust, the Russian Revolution, Lenin and Stalin, the Gulag, the rise of Chinese Communism and Mao, the Khmer Rouge and the coming killing of tens of millions more.  WWII may have ended for America with VJ Day in August of 1945, but for the millions trapped and imprisoned in the countries of Eastern Europe, in the Soviet Union and Communist China and how many other places, it would last for decades more.  WWI’s shadow is very long.  All due to missteps and a needless charge to war.

Again, we can look to poetry to explain just how WWI changed everything in our world.  The war brought about a flourishing of what become known as War Poetry, particularly the poetry of English writers, who captured the fall of that idyllic society, the Victorian age closing, the loss of innocence, the end of European culture and greatness, the slaughter of almost a million men in the horrific trenches of Flanders and France.  Just to recite one poem, from one of the lesser-known War Poets, Ivor Gurney, but it is a poem that captures that fall from grace as well as any:

To His Love

He's gone, and all our plans
Are useless indeed.
We'll walk no more on Cotswolds
Where the sheep feed
Quietly and take no heed.

His body that was so quick
Is not as you
Knew it, on Severn River
Under the blue
Driving our small boat through

You would not know him now…
But still he died
Nobly, so cover him over
With violets of pride
Purple from Severn side.

Cover him, cover him soon!
And with thick set
Masses of memoried flowers-
Hide that red we

Thing I must somehow forget.

The despair of that War led many into the arms, indeed into the dreams of utopian fantasies from fascism, Nazims and Communism.  Western Christendom had failed, fallen, and bankrupted itself in the eyes of many, in Europe especially.  How could it have not?

One classic example of that is the great poet, writer and essayist, Ezra Pound.  The brilliant expatriate American writer that helped shape all of 20th century literature, who “made” Eliot’s “The Waste Land” the poem that it became, would then fall into the thrall of fascism.  He became a war time apologist for Mussolini, spewing anti-Western tracts and anti-Semitic bile on radio broadcasts from Italy.  He would end his life, disgraced, from an insane asylum to self-imposed exile in Italy.  His contributions to literature, his brilliance is noted, but dwells in dark shadows.

WWI shook our world, worse, in many ways it destroyed it and our damaged our souls.  We are still living amidst its ruins, the fading beneficiaries of the glory laid down from the centuries previous.  We yearn for that peace daily, to great ends, even a peace that can be more destructive than the chaos we try and escape from. 

What can the poets of the past teach us?  It seems to be peace at all costs.  Many historians have made such accusations of the WWI War Poets, that the horrors of the war led to an overwrought search for peace and later appeasement, a poetry that seemed to only focus on the horrors and senselessness of the war and nothing of the heroics, the cause itself of defeating German militarism, the ultimate sacrifices that were made.  The merits of that war can be argued another time.   But poetry, in of itself is not considered marital, it is often seen as idealistic, romantic, and illusionary, it is not the stuff of Sparta and the conquering hordes upon horses and Viking pillaging and conquest. 

Perhaps, but war is not always just, not always wise.  Poetry speaks for our souls and yearnings and humaneness.  We march to war with parades and drumbeats and tossed flower petals.  The Union ladies set up summer picnics on the hills over the first Battle of Manassas, full of such excited expectations.  Until it wasn’t so exciting, and they had to flee in the face of a Confederate rout.  And then four years of hell and hundreds of thousands of dead.  Can Ivor Gurney be faulted for remembering the Cotswold’s in contrast to four years of trench warfare and true hell?  Is Wendall Berry being too “romantic” to think of the small farmers in their homes over the Kentucky River in relation to the horrors of war?  Maybe we do have something to learn from the poets, all in balance, all in perspective.  Avoid war, always, but also prepare for war.  That is not appeasement.

For our own lives, for our nation and for the world, the struggle to find that peace and to remain free, to not succumb to false hopes and the pull of a false security are warnings that must be heeded.  For at the end of the day, there is only one final peace.  We must remember, there is always hope, there is always faith.  To close, we go to the great 19th Century English poet Gerard Manley Hopkins who in “God’s Grandeur” wrote:

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
    Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
    World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.


Trump Delivers Priceless Response to Latest Media 'Gotcha' Involving Mark Esper


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Have you heard? Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has a new book coming out, and the focus is once again on the bad orange man.

Alright, you probably haven’t heard because who cares, right? These books are all a dime a dozen, they all say the same stuff, and most of the big “scandals” they “reveal” turn out to be nothing. That looks to be the case again with Esper’s tell-all offering, which is being heavily promoted by the media.

One of the major “gotchas” the press is running with is a claim by Esper that Trump once asked about bombing the drug cartels.

Wait, am I supposed to be upset at the idea of bombing the drug cartels? Esper and his media friends apparently think so, but I’m going to suggest that normal people might not scoff quite as hard.

Remember, these are the same foreign policy hacks who spent 20 years bombing women and children in the Middle East, but Trump is crazy for suggesting we bomb organizations that have killed hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of Americans and continue to enable the deadly border crisis? Yeah, spare me the theatrics. If there was ever a justification for military force, it would be taking on the drug cartels that have caused untold damage to our nation while operating out of a country that sits on our border  Certainly, that’s a more worthy cause for military action than propagating a civil war in Syria or bombing Libya.

But the press and foreign policy establishment are nothing if they aren’t complete, ineffective idiots. Thus, it’s no surprise they’d act gobsmacked at the suggestion of taking on the drug cartels with a quarter of the vigor with which we blew up kids in cars in Afghanistan.

In response to Esper’s various claims, Trump put out this priceless statement.

The entire thing is just classic Trump. How much is true and not true? I have no idea. The former president’s go-to is to deny pretty much anything and everything. What if Trump did want to send 10,000 troops to DC during the BLM riots? The press and establishment had no problem with sending tens of thousands of troops there after a few hundred people walked around the Capitol and skirmished with cops. The BLM riots in the nation’s capital were not peaceful in the least.

The rest is just fluff. Trump fired Esper through Mark Meadows. Who cares? Honestly, I actually think the former president should have owned the drug cartel thing instead of putting “no comment,” but the rest is hilarious enough. I will say that Trump complaining about Esper when he had a chance to fire him far sooner than he did is a negative trend on the former president’s part. Has he learned that lesson?

Regardless, I’ll end by noting just how irrelevant all this is. No one is changing their vote in November over claims about Trump by Esper or anyone else. He is their obsession, but normal people are worried about things that actually affect them. Those would include crushing inflation, gas prices, the stock market crash, and the border crisis.



The diversity monster is loose

The diversity monster is loose

Monsters, of course, come in a variety of shapes and forms, but they have some deep commonalities. Among these are a voracious appetite, an affinity for darkness, and a talent for evasion. They are hard to kill and very dangerous, especially to the innocent and the naïve. Often they inspire a perverse kind of worship.

I have been thinking about monsters as I contemplate the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) mandates that have swept through the nation’s schools, colleges, and businesses, and nearly every other institution of note. The National Archives has a “Diversity and Inclusion Program.” So does Major League Baseball. So does the American Public Gardens Association.

One is hard put to find a significant public body that is not committed to DEI. The National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA), however, seems to be dragging its feet. It is proudly taking steps toward “gender equity” and hiring more “non-binary individuals,” but only 16 percent of funeral directors are currently female.

Not all Americans are equally enthusiastic about DEI. Some even rearrange the initials to call the movement DIE. At this stage, it is probably unnecessary to unpack the meaning of DEI, or DIE, but since I have invoked the idea of monsters, let me spend some time poking around the bones.

Some twenty years ago, I published Diversity: The Invention of a Concept,which, among other things, traced the D in DIE to the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Justice Lewis Powell speculated that the Court might look kindly on racial preferences in higher education if a future plaintiff could show that selecting students by race enhanced the education of everyone by providing intellectual diversity in the classroom.

That eye-of-the-needle opening turned over the next decade into a six-lane super highway, and in June 2003 gained the official imprimatur of the Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger. That was when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, with a troubled conscience, decided that racial preferences, though not easily reconciled with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Civil Rights Act, would have to be tolerated for another “25 years.” By that time, she “reasoned,” diversity would be so natural to Americans that no racial preferences would be needed to ensure its continued blessings.

Here one might begin to discern the creaking of the mummy’s coffin or the strange glow in the forest. When writing Diversity, I took note of the alacrity with which its advocates switched metaphors (quilts, salad bowls, crayons, stews); rationales (joyful racial unity, proud separation, paying overdue bills, protection from the majority); and policies (thumb of the scale; strict demographic proportionality; race norming). It was clear even twenty years ago that “diversity” was not a specific answer to a specific problem, but a sprawling cultural ideal that its advocates would pursue in a hundred different directions.

What then of “inclusion” and “equity”? Inclusion had already appeared on the scene with its deceptive doubleness. On one hand, it sounded like an “all are welcome” appeal. But upon a closer look, “inclusion” turned out to be a summons to apply different (i.e. lower) standards to members of minority groups. Sometimes this is now called “culturally responsive teaching,” and it includes such things as instructing students to write in Black English.

“Equity” is the relative newcomer to the trinity. It is a substitute for “equality,” because equality before the law, equality of opportunity, and moral equality fail to deliver the wished-for result, which is redistribution of all social goods in strict proportion to the relative size of a minority group to the general population. Equity is a wish-fulfillment word masquerading as a justice claim.

D-E-I is an ever-changing creature. I tried to bring my account up to date in 2019 in Diversity Rules, but it is an endless race. Still, one big difference has emerged: millions of parents of school-age children are suddenly alert to what DIE is doing to their children. Mainly as a result of the COVID shut-downs, parents got a first-hand look at the 1619 Project’s DIE-style mangling of American history. And Critical Race Theory’s DIE-style immersion of students in white guilt and black victimology. And Anti-Racism’s DIE-style demonization of Western civilization. And Black Lives Matter’s DIE-style demand for reparations. And the ardent denials by officials, teachers unions, and school boards that anything untoward was happening.

The monster is now loose. People can see it with their own eyes. But our educational establishment says there is no monster; just a wholesome effort to make things right.

I am not taking up the task here of trying to persuade the good people of Springwood, Ohio, to watch out for Freddy Krueger, or to warn the secure residents of Crystal Lake that something is amiss with Jason Voorhees. If you like your nightmares, you can keep your nightmares. But DIE is a recipe for racial animus, national division, and endless cultural hostility. It will not fulfill the dreams of Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O’Connor or any of the others who slumbered into imagining that America could achieve peaceful racial reconciliation by institutionalizing racial preferences and incentivizing racial militancy.

In 1965, a low-budget British film company released Die, Monster, Die! It is an adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s scary story, “The Colour Out of Space,” about a meteorite that unleashes a malign force on a New England farm. It mutates some of the family members and drives others mad. The movie relocates the meteorite to an English manor house, where Boris Karloff, in one of his last memorable roles, comes under its spell. “Will the breath of the living be snuffed out by the hand of darkness?” asks the trailer. Karloff’s character thinks he can harvest good from ill. He is, of course, mistaken.

As a long-time connoisseur of old scary movies, I thought of Die, Monster, Die! the moment one of my colleagues suggested that the National Association of Scholars launch a “Defund DEI” campaign. I am not averse to the idea of such a campaign. We’ve been deep in weeds fighting DEI across the country. The idea of launching the campaign comes on the news that Stanford Engineering School is offering a DEI position with the median salary of $147,000, which, as one perspicacious observer notes, is better pay than software engineers receive in Santa Clara County — median $127,000.

Yes, Defund DEI. It cannot hurt. But don’t get too confident. Check around Stanford for strange-colored meteorites and mutant plants and people. And remember that no monster is ever known to have succumbed to a budget cut. Boris more or less fizzles out at the end of the movie, but the meteorite lives on. DEI will die only when Americans come ’round to realizing that harvesting the good of racial reconciliation from the ills of racial resentment will never happen.